George Zimmerman is now suing Trayvon Martin’s family for $100 million

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

Who are the “all” that you’re referring to?

Maybe it's just me but I have a hard time understanding how your son getting killed for packing skittles, getting no justice, and then getting sued by his killer makes you a low life. Therefore I don't think the reference could possibly include the mother. But I will admit that maybe that's just goody lil two shoes me. Always seeing the best in Dis posters.

 

[kidshop]

Maybe it's just me but I have a hard time understanding how your son getting killed for packing skittles, getting no justice, and then getting sued by his killer makes you a low life. Therefore I don't think the reference could possibly include the mother. But I will admit that maybe that's just goody lil two shoes me. Always seeing the best in Dis posters.

I assume they meant lawyers....

 

[msjprincess]

I assume they meant lawyers....

I doubt he would have used "flame away" if he were referring to the lawyers.

 

[The Foolish Mortal]

Who are the “all” that you’re referring to?

Crab people

 

[DuskKodesh]

That poor family. I can't imagine losing a kid then having to go through this.

 

[Imzadi]

"Nutty" is far too kind a word for him.

I agree "nutty" is an understatement.

I was trying to use a word that was DIS appropriate. The scumbag isn't worth getting points over.

 

[declansdad]

I doubt he would have used "flame away" if he were referring to the lawyers.

I guess we'll never know.

 

[DeniseJH]

Wow, what an absolute piece of trash - and proud of it too.

 

[tvguy]

Truth is an absolute defense to a defamation claim. George Zimmerman, YOU LOSE!!! YOU GET NOTHING!!!!

Ah, you do recall he was found not guilty? In our system you are innocent until proven guility, and they failed to do that. Not sure I want you as my attorney!

 

[bcla]

Ah, you do recall he was found not guilty? In our system you are innocent until proven guility, and they failed to do that. Not sure I want you as my attorney!

Well - there are different standards in criminal trials vs civil trials. I've served on both civil and criminal juries. Criminal trials require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, while civil trials are based on a preponderance of the evidence. Case in point would be OJ Simpson not guilty after a criminal trial but found liable in a civil trial.

In a criminal trial one can't be forced to testify in ones own defense.

 

[tvguy]

Well - there are different standards in criminal trials vs civil trials. I've served on both civil and criminal juries. Criminal trials require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, while civil trials are based on a preponderance of the evidence. Case in point would be OJ Simpson not guilty after a criminal trial but found liable in a civil trial.

In a criminal trial one can't be forced to testify in ones own defense.

Yes, exactly. So given the lower standard, under the law, George Zimmerman would win this civil suit.

 

[The Foolish Mortal]

Yes, exactly. So given the lower standard, under the law, George Zimmerman would win this civil suit.

Probably not. I go back to my comment above (which was flippant, but also a correct statement of the law). Being an attorney that has actually tried multiple defamation/false light lawsuits, I can tell you that damages are difficult to prove in this kind of case (and damages are a required component to prove a case of defamation). The Elon Musk verdict last week is a high profile example of that. Frankly, none of us actually know the evidence that would be presented in this case, so none of us can truly say which side would prevail (but form what I have read, it doesn't sound like Zimmerman has much of a case). But I can confidently say that Zimmerman is a horrible human being that deserves most the bad things that may come to him and I hope he loses this ridiculous lawsuit.

 

[bcla]

Yes, exactly. So given the lower standard, under the law, George Zimmerman would win this civil suit.

I was just noting that the fact that he was declared not guilty doesn't translate to a presumption that his prosecution was wrong.

He's claiming defamation and malicious prosecution. I would say his chance of winning is low. While presumption of innocence and Florida's lack of a duty to retreat law help him during his criminal trial, it's still a high bar for him to prove malicious prosecution.

On top of that, his attorney is a real piece of work. A couple of judges have barred him from appearing before them. This is from an appellate court ruling that didn't allow him to represent a client in a district where he normally doesn't appear:

Finally, the district court expressed concern that Klayman has shown disregard for district judges in the past by confronting them personally. The district court pointed to the Second Circuit’s finding that Klayman had challenged U.S. District Judge Denny Chin’s impartiality because he was Asian-American and had been appointed by President Clinton. The court found the challenge to the judge’s racial and ethnic heritage “extremely serious.” MacDraw, 138 F.3d at 37. “Nor should one charge that a judge is not impartial,” the court emphasized, “solely because an attorney is embroiled in a controversy with the administration that appointed the judge.” Id. at 38. The Second Circuit found that these charges were “discourteous” and “degrading” to the court, “prejudicial to the administration of justice,” and “insulting and smacked of intimidation.” Id. at 37–38. The court “[did] not hesitate to hold that the suggestions regarding Judge Chin’s impartiality violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.” Id. at 38.​

 

[bcla]

Frankly, none of us actually know the evidence that would be presented in this case, so none of us can truly say which side would prevail (but form what I have read, it doesn't sound like Zimmerman has much of a case).

Of course I was just trying to get across that "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't necessarily translate to a civil case. While preponderance of the evidence would be the standard, I'm sure that tvguy would understand that any kind of defamation/libel case is exceedingly hard to win in court. As it stands, many legal followers of this case seem to believe that it would mostly likely be tossed by a judge as defective. He filed a defamation lawsuit 5 years ago that was tossed.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

Ah, you do recall he was found not guilty? In our system you are innocent until proven guility, and they failed to do that. Not sure I want you as my attorney!

Yes, exactly. So given the lower standard, under the law, George Zimmerman would win this civil suit.

Do you even understand what we're talking about?
We're not talking about Zimmerman's guilt or innocence. We're talking about a civil suit initiated by Zimmerman.

In the criminal trial the state had a burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, it is now Zimmerman doing the suing for defamation and for malicious prosecution. As such in this case it is HE that has the burden of proof by preponderance of the evidence. He is claiming witnesses lied. He is claiming a conspiracy between prosecutors and the Martins. And the burden is on him to prove it. And oh what a coincidence. This suit is timed right before a conspiracy fantasy book and movie are due out. Further, his attorney is notorious for conspiracy fantasies. Oh surprise surprise surprise. People that understand the law understand that just because you're found not guilty doesn't mean the prosecution against you was malicious or any of their witnesses lied and defamed you. They also understand Zimmerman has two chances of winning. Slim, and none and none just entered the stretch with a 25 length lead. They'll make more on the conspiracy fantasy circuit and the bigot bucks circuit than they will on any lawsuit. Oh and I'm sure whether I want you as my attorney. That would be a no.

 

[tvguy]

Do you even understand what we're talking about?
We're not talking about Zimmerman's guilt or innocence. We're talking about a civil suit initiated by Zimmerman.

In the criminal trial the state had a burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, it is now Zimmerman doing the suing for defamation and for malicious prosecution. As such in this case it is HE that has the burden of proof by preponderance of the evidence. He is claiming witnesses lied. He is claiming a conspiracy between prosecutors and the Martins. And the burden is on him to prove it. And oh what a coincidence. This suit is timed right before a conspiracy fantasy book and movie are due out. Further, his attorney is notorious for conspiracy fantasies. Oh surprise surprise surprise. People that understand the law understand that just because you're found not guilty doesn't mean the prosecution against you was malicious or any of their witnesses lied and defamed you. They also understand Zimmerman has two chances of winning. Slim, and none and none just entered the stretch with a 25 length lead. They'll make more on the conspiracy fantasy circuit and the bigot bucks circuit than they will on any lawsuit. Oh and I'm sure whether I want you as my attorney. That would be a no.

Yes I completely understand. I think that people who understand JURIES understand there is risk in letting a case like this go to trial before a jury. I disagree, his chances of winning are not slim to none, at this point I'd say 50-50 given the political pressure to prosecute. Ultimately his prosecution may not have been malicious, but the certainly was not well executed.

https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.c...fense/suing-for-damages-malicious-prosecutionhttps://www.alllaw.com/articles/nol...uits-malicious-prosecution-abuse-process.html

 

[The Foolish Mortal]

Of course I was just trying to get across that "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't necessarily translate to a civil case. While preponderance of the evidence would be the standard, I'm sure that tvguy would understand that any kind of defamation/libel case is exceedingly hard to win in court. As it stands, many legal followers of this case seem to believe that it would mostly likely be tossed by a judge as defective. He filed a defamation lawsuit 5 years ago that was tossed.

Oh yeah, I knew what you were trying to say. I don't disagree

 

[The Foolish Mortal]

Ultimately his prosecution may not have been malicious, but the certainly was not well executed.

Yeah, but that's not the legal standard to bring a civil claim for malicious prosecution. If so, OJ Simpson would have the strongest case of malicious prosecution in US history . Malice is very different than "not well executed."

 

[tvguy]

On top of that, his attorney is a real piece of work. A couple of judges have barred him from appearing before them. This is from an appellate court ruling that didn't allow him to represent a client in a district where he normally doesn't appear:

Well, I am not a lawyer, but the Judge's instructions on the law in the civil case I was on made a specific point of saying that the jury could not under any circumstances consider how we felt about any of the lawyers, or anything that may have come up in the trial about the lawyers. Just the evidence presented, and the credibility of those presenting it on the witness stand.

 

[NYCgrrl]

He's an idiot and I don't give much thought to that type of person.
I expect his civil suit to fail.